I have been a sedevacantist for 10 years. Only recently have I begun to wonder how easterners felt about this belief. I attend a Society of St. Pius V Mass (Latin) that holds true to the practices and teachings of the Church prior to Vatican II and I believe that because of the Heretical (I know some of you may bite my head off) actions of JPII that he cannot be a true Pope. I do believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, but do not recognize John Paul II as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy.

What I am wondering about is if there are any Eastern Rites who believe the same about JPII and I would like to know how much the Eastern Rite Mass has changed after the 60's?

If there is any who are familiar with this topic I am looking forward to your reply.
Thank you,

[This is a not great way for one Latin to welcome another Latin to this Forum

BUT I think that maybe you could be a wee bittie more diplomatic in your use of language.

The use of heretical is not really appreciated here

Pope John Paul II is the Bishop of Rome and was undoubtedly validly elected. If some of his actions were heretical (Assisi,Prayer for Islam co-celebrating with pro-abortion Lutheran priestesses) the only body competent to make that determination would be an ecumenical council or a successor Pope. We can not judge. I would not defend a good number of his actions nor more than I would defend Pope Alexander VI. But both were valid popes. We should pray for him everyday. He is a deeply prayerful and sincere man who errors on non ex-cathedra matters such as given a cushy post to Cardinal Law in Rome. David dabbling with Bethsheba did not make him invaild.

It is actually Vatican II that has to a great extent paved the way for us Eastern Catholics to return to our authentic liturgical, spiritual and theological heritage.

We are officially in communion with the current Pontiff, John Paul II, and acknowledge him as Pope of Rome.

I won't bite your head off, and I am not offended. I think I understand what you are saying. I think you mean the post-council craziness and liturgical abuses that have occurred in many areas of the West. As a Byzantine Catholic, I also hold that the Pope can not officially teach error when he speaks as successor of St. Peter on matters of faith and morals. But he can be totally wrong on anything else. One thing I think bears mentioning. Popes can hold erroneous, even heretical, views. I am not saying this pope does, but such can happen. Holding that office, or any other office in the Church, does not elevate the office-holder to sainthood. I meet Catholics everyday who have what I call a bad case of pope-olotry in that they wish to elevate the pope to semi-divine status. That's crazy! Popes are human beings and they can possess all the flaws the rest of us have. Sometimes we get popes who lead us to saintliness - sometimes we don't. Keep the Papacy in perspective.

In the Byzantine Catholic Churches, the Divine Liturgy has become more Eastern. After Vatican II, many of the Latinizations in the U.S. started disappearing. It seems we are being encouraged to return to our Eastern traditions and practices. So any changes after Vatican II have been good for us.

Much of Vatican II benefitted 20 of 21 rites. I do believe it harmed the Roman Rite.

It's much harder to keep perspective when there's no other Pope, in personal experience, to compare John Paul II to. (Or so I, as an under-25 Catholic, imagine.)

SEDE,

Welcome to the Byzantine Catholic Forum. I sympathize (and really don't have a problem with) the SSPX. However, I do disagree with Sedevacantism's stand that John Paul II is not a legit Pope (although many of his actions are deplorable). May I ask why you attend an SSPX Mass if you are Sedevacantist? You must know that the SSPX considers John Paul II a valid Pope.

I'm sure there are some Eastern Catholics, either individuals or communities, that are somehow connected to either the SSPX or Sedevacantism. In fact, I believe there was an article posted on the Forum some time ago about a Ukie Orthodox bishop entering/converting into either the SSPX or a Sedevacantist group.

Basically, though, Vatican II was much more of a help than a hinderance to Eastern Catholicism. Its effect on Latin Catholicism is, in my eyes as well as the eyes of countless others, a completely different story.

Dominus Vobiscum, Frater.

Logos Teen

Dear SEDE,

welcome to the forum. It appears that you have offended the Latin Lass of Loch Lomond. By what standard do you deem the Pope's actions heretical? One may question the prudential judgement or actions of the Pope, but one would hardly judge him a heretic. As moderator, I ask that you refrain from judging any one a heretic, when the competent authority has not done so. Please enjoy your time here while learning about the Apostolic Churches of the East

Teen,

SEDE is affiliated with the sedevacantist SSPV, not be confused with the Lefebvrist SSPX, which is not sedevacantist, and professes "filial devotion and loyalty" to John Paul II, Pope of Rome. There's a world of difference between the two groups as is inferred by the patrons of these respective societies.

We do not have authority to judge anyone a heretic.
But we could speculate upon the reaction of Pius X and Leo XIII based on their writings and those before him.
Where the current message is muddled and misses the clarity of the past, nothing compels us to abandon the previous clarity.
No one promised the road would be easy to see.
Our Lady of LaSallette blessed with a warning.
The Church remains the Church.
We were chosen to live in this age.
Rise to the challenge
Christos Anesti

Thank you for your replies.

It was not my intention to argue any of the proofs for my position or to convince any of you to join in them. I simply wanted to know how you felt about it and now I have an idea.
It has taken me a long time to understand the complications of the sede vacante position and I don't expect to be able to prove them in a few board posts. If however you are truly interested (for any reason) you should research why some Catholics hold this belief. You may start with this site http://www.stthomasaquinas.net
And then keep going...
If then anyone wants to try and refute it, have at it. I'm always interested.
As far as the use of the word "heretical" I didn't know that it was such a filthy word. I'll try not to use it the next time someone tells me that Our Lady wasn't a virgin. (Not)
Sometimes you just have to call it like it is and not worry about whose feelings you hurt!

St. Thomas Aquinas doubted the Immaculate Conception and Duns Scotus was proven correct. Does that make him invalid? Of course not!


The Novus Ordo is valid, but I avoid it whenever possible. Christ is still present through all the utter ugliness and trite people centered liturgy rather than God-centered worship. He did not leave a billion Catholics orphans.

Latin traditionalists in some quarters have nothing good to say about the churches of the East, Catholic or Orthodox.

They read Ludvig Ott and anathematize us. There are examples of this all over the internet.

But they hope we sympathise with their problems "over there".

Well, I don't.

My only disappointment is that we needed permission from Rome to push the Eastern churches back toward their roots. The bishops should have been able to do so without directives.

As for Sede vacante-ism, it has no basis in reality. To me it's a bunch of Latin Ultra-Montanists that can't figure out what went wrong.

Again, no sympathy from me.

Michael, that sinner

They are Ultramontanists and many have my sympathy. They know what went wrong; the Jesuits and Dominicans of the Nineteenth Century were outhustled by the bishops of Napoleon III, Garibaldi, Simon Bolivar and the Americanist heresy. Karl Barth, the theologian who replaced Thomas Aquinas in Vatican II wrote literally hundreds of letters to a female agent of North Korea in time better spent saying the rosary for the gift of heroic chastity. Pope Paul VI stated "The smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary."

The new and improved catechism has a view of religious liberty that would make any freemason cheer in glee. Lefebvre,as a Frenchmen understood the nature of the bishops post-French Revolution and was in fact ordained by a freemason. Sede-vacants are in serious error, but Lefebvre was correct in his central insight on the 180 degree flip-flop on religious liberty. He objected more on this point than the Novus Ordo.

Vendee martyrs, Pray for us.